»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Obama True to Form
| The Alley |
|
Obama True to Form |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Obama to Cut Slain Officer's Benefits in Half -- Where's Media Outrage? By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive) May 8, 2009 - 02:48 ET In a hypocrisy sure to outrage, just as Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to attend a ceremony to honor fallen police officers, the Obama administration is proposing to cut almost in half a program that provides benefits to the families left behind. Of the very few reporting on this, the Associated Press reported on May 7 that the president's proposed budget calls for cuts in the Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program. Obama wants to cut $50 million from the program, the budget to fall from $110 million to $60 million. Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop. Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing. The director of a police survivors group begs to differ, however. They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year's numbers already. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/05/08/obama-cut-slain-officers-benefits-half-wheres-media-outrage Ok, it's official. Obama, and the media that protects him, have just moved from distasteful to despicable. |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Less police officers dying is despicable, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's beneath you, Ron. I am really disappointed you would say that. Obama is trying to use that as an excuse when records show that deaths are already up - or did you miss that in the article? |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
The worst part about it, Mike, is that the Republicans are going to approve the thing anyhow, and aren't going to say word one about this. Politics has gone back to a "no partry" system. The differences between the two parties any more is so razor thin... well, in theory it isn't; however, in practice, the Democrats are in power and allowing Nancy Pelosi to set their agenda without saying anything against it.. and the Republicans are to scared to speak up. They have curled up into a ball in the corner and are begging, "please don't hurt us". But this one goes to eleven... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wish I could disagree, Ringo, but I can't. Faced with a liberal WHite House, a liberal congress and a liberal media, they have given up whatever testicular fortitude they may have had. It's sad that even decent, ordinary citizens would not scream bloody murder about this, regardless of their party affiliation. They scream loudly enough when they need those police officers to risk their lives for them. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What I see, Mike, is a disagreement about what is going to happen in the future. Do you really think the Federal government should budget our money based on a fringe group's numbers? Yea, like statistics never lie? What I find despicable, Mike, is the intentionally misleading slant on this story. They are twisting the truth to suit their agenda, and not even twisting it very well. It would be almost laughable if the hate and divisiveness weren't so in danger of ruining this country. A budget, whether set high or set low, doesn't "cut slain officer's benefits in half." Not unless you really think those benefits are set as a percentage of the budget? Does a police widow get one percent of the available money? Or does she get an amount determined by service and family size? I don't know the answer, but I seriously doubt survivor benefits are treated like a sales commission. It's not a lottery, to be evenly distributed among those left standing. The budget doesn't determine the allocation. If the Administration's predictions are right, the budget will be sufficient to pay survivor's benefits just as they've been paid in the past. If the Administration is wrong, more money will have to be allocated from somewhere else. In neither case is there any indication the benefits will be reduced. Personally, I hope the Administration is right. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What I see, Mike, is a disagreement about what is going to happen in the future. Allow me to repeat "Did you miss that in the article?" They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year's numbers already. That's not referring to the future. That's right now. Obama can look at the facts that deaths have already gone up 21% and determine that they will go down next year? That sounds reasonable to you? A budget, whether set high or set low, doesn't "cut slain officer's benefits in half." Really? Then taking the budget from 110 to 60 is not really a cut? Well, it is slightly less than 50%, I'll grant you that. The budget doesn't determine the allocation. If the Administration is wrong, more money will have to be allocated from somewhere else. Yes, and the Easter bunny lays brightly colored eggs and Santa comes down the chimney every December. Where have you read that the administration will allocate any shortages from anywhere else? if the hate and divisiveness weren't so in danger of ruining this country. What is in danger of ruining this country is Obama's policies. The divisiveness will not be between Democrats and Republicans - It will be against the current administration and the people. If you see nothing wrong with this action, then fine. Somehow I feel that if this were a Bush decision, you may have a different outlook because I cannot believe your thoughts do not come from a partisan direction. When there is a bill or decision to cut VA benefits, people go berzerk. WHy should this be any different? Police officers are our domestic soldier, putting their lives on the line every day they go to work. Maybe Obama could take the 100 million going to repave a spare runway at Murtha's airport, which only has 4 flights a day, instead? Guess that's out of the question.... |
||
|
Klassy Lassy Member Elite
since 2005-06-28
Posts 2187Oregon |
More people should be aware of the statistics. I feel at a hopeless loss trying to keep up with what gets passed and what does not...sometime in the guise of an altogether other bill proposed. So much is unscrupulous and it goes right by without so much as a blink. Thank you for the post. I will read the link! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
How much of last years budget allocation wasn’t used Mike? I’ll give you a clue. Last year a total of 74.8 million was paid out. What did they do with all that under spend? The government reallocated it to a budget item that exceeded the budgeted amount so they could balance the books. How much will be paid out this year? I’ve no idea but the managers of the fund have projected (and requested) a total budget requirement of 55.8 million for 2009. If they’re right Obama’s allocation amount is about right. If they’re wrong they’ll over spend and the difference will be balanced from a budget item that under spends (like the Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program did last year). . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And please, Mike, allow me to repeat: "Yea, like statistics never lie?" The Director of the police survivors group is probably not an unbiased source. And if your really think the numbers can't be manipulated to give any answer desired, Mike, then you're not even trying to think critically. Let me define "police officers" and/or "killed on duty" and I can probably triple his 21 percent number. Or cut it by an equal factor. Why should I believe him? quote: Mike, if I set aside a hundred dollars to pay my electric bill and the bill comes in a week later at $150, I still have to pay the whole bill. My budget was wrong, but since that's probably not an excuse Consumer's Energy will accept, I'll have to pull the extra fifty bucks from somewhere else. You telling me you never had to make similar adjustments? quote: And you'd be absolutely wrong. There have been quite a few Obama decisions with which I disagreed, Mike, and some few that have irritated the hell out of me. You should probably know my philosophies well enough by now to even guess which ones? However, I don't think you ever saw me start a thread in here bashing Bush, so why would you expect me to start one bashing the current President? And when I respond to someone else's thread, it's typically because I disagree; I don't usually do a lot of "me, too" posts. Post an Obama rant that makes sense and I'll probably shut up.  Grinch, thanks for looking up some hard numbers. I should have done that, I suppose, but frankly this argument was so full of holes I didn't feel it even warranted that much time. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, it's always easy to say don't trust the statistics whenever the statistics don't agree with you. I would think those figures would be fairly easy to check by the right people and would be silly to lie about. Yes, I would still have to pay my light bill but Obama has said nothing about making up the difference from somewhere else. For both you and grinch I have two scenarios... (1) Obama cuts the benefits by almost half, stating he believes the figures will go down (even though figures state otherwise) and, if more money is needed, he will replace it with monies from somewhere else (which he has not stated he will do). (2) Obama leaves the benefits the same and, if it turns out that he was correct, the surplus could be siphoned off to other areas that need it. Please explain to me why 1 is more logical than 2, except that 2 gives Obama the chance to say "Look! I'm cutting budget costs!", which he actually is not doing if he is going to have to replace the money from somewhere else. I can understand where you are coming from, Ron. You believe Obama is simply trying to put a realist figure on the expense and, if it is not realistic, benefits will still not be diminished. I could live with that. I simply don't believe it....first because he has not stated that any shortage in funds would be replaced and, second, his excuse given that he expects less deaths, stinks to high heaven, frankly. Why would he expect that in an economy that continues to sink and an unemployment rate that continues to rise? Maybe he thinks people won't be able to afford bullets to shoot cops with? He wants to cut 50m there while he wants 100m to relocate detainees from Gitmo. So, with around 200 prisoners there, that would be about 5 million apiece to move them. Maybe he could get them to fly coach and save a few bucks?? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes he has Mike, you’re just ignoring it. The Administration has categorically stated that every eligible claimant in 2009 will receive the allotted payment of £365K, which is an increased amount from last year. Implicit in that statement is an undertaking to fund any overspend from other areas of the budget where a surplus is available. Nobody is going to get less death benefit than they should get Mike, claiming that there’s going to be a 50% cut in payments is twaddle. There’s going to be a 50% cut in the budget because the managers of the fund have estimated that they only require 50% to make full payments to all eligible claimants. Last year the budget was $110 million but they only spent $74.8 million, this year the fund managers have estimated that total costs will be $55.8 million. The options are to allocate $54.2 million more than they’re saying they need or allocate what they’re asking for and increase the budgeted amount if required. If the people running the fund are saying that they estimate a total spend of $55.8 million to meet all the valid claims why do you think it’s a good idea to double the budgeted amount? quote: That’s easy Mike. Because if you doubled the expected spend on every budgeted item, and using your argument there’d be no reason not to, your total budget would be twice the amount of actual spend and totally useless. Actually that’s not really true. The reality is that your actual spend would increase in most areas to match the allocated budget. If my wife has an agreed budget of $600 for a new dishwasher she’ll spend around $600, if we double the budget to $1200 guess how much she’ll spend. So the logical answer is 1. Set the budget at what you believe is a true reflection of what you’re actually going to spend and balance the difference between budgeted and actual spend by re-allocating funds where necessary. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If my wife has an agreed budget of $600 for a new dishwasher she’ll spend around $600, if we double the budget to $1200 guess how much she’ll spend. Not sure what you are saying, grinch. If they budget the 110 million, they will make sure that more police officers die to use the full amount, like your wife would do? Ok, let's look at it in a logical manner. Obama has decided that police deaths will lessen in the coming budget year. What does he base that on. Less crime? Increased police security? Let's look at the figures... So far in 2009 police deaths thru May 9th are at 46, up 18% over the same period last year. http://www.odmp.org/ click on tab "statistics" on left hand side Police deaths (on duty) in 2008 totaled 140 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-29-police-deaths_N.htm 74.8m was spent on survivor benefits in 2008. Ok, those are actual facts. So Obama is looking at figures that are up over last year where 74.8m was spent and decides to reduce the budget by 19m over what was actually spent because he feels that deaths will decrease, even though they are going at a pace higher than last year. What area of that do you find logical? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It’s not difficult Mike. I’m saying that if you simply double every area of the budget people will have a tendency to spend more than they need to. quote: Wrong Mike. Obama has asked the managers of the benefit fund how much they need to meet the estimated spend for 2009. They’ve given him a figure of 55.8 million. Included in that estimate are all the administration costs to handle those claims and probably an estimate of expected claims based on historical data. From that the administration have set the budget and explained that the evidence supplied estimates a reduced number of claims for 2009. quote: Police officers are only one of numerous public employees eligible to claim. Do you know whether the claims for the other eligible public safety officers are up or down Mike? I don’t either, the people who do are the managers tasked with dealing with the claims and they’re saying that 60 million is enough to meet estimated costs. quote: All of it. I might not agree with the fund managers figures if I had them in front of me but I haven’t seen them, I don’t know how much of the budget is made up of administration costs for instance and whether they’re expecting savings in those areas. I don’t know any of the mitigating factors that lead them to conclude that costs will be less this year, including any of the data for total claims to date. I do know that they’re saying 60 million is enough based on their estimates and that I don’t have any reason to doubt them, presumably neither has the Administration and they do have access to that data. If you’re saying that the fund managers are wrong Mike, fine, say it, but slating Obama for setting the budget based on what they’re asking for is a bit of a low blow and a very weak argument. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Do you not say this after every Presidential contest? Is it not always like this directly after an election Ron? Do the losers always tend to seize on every policy decision to fuel "I told you so"? Or is there something different and unusual this time? In there an ingredient in the election of this particular person that has caused more than usual pent up impotent frustration? Or maybe feelings are simply overheated in the general economic turmoil and insecurity? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It’s not difficult Mike. I’m saying that if you simply double every area of the budget people will have a tendency to spend more than they need to. If that's the case, then why did they only spend 78 last year when they had 110 allocated? With regards to your answer of wrong about my statement of "Obama has decided that police deaths will lessen in the coming budget year.", I'll restate what is posted in my original entry... Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop. Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing. Yes, I realize that, no matter how I present it, you will spin it the other way and that's fine. You have done the same on a number of items like the entitlements and perks, even to the point of agreeing with Obama while calling him a liar so I really don't expect anything less. I'll let others decide how they feel about it. Best to you.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s a laugh Mike. You spin a story to make it sound like the administration is cutting benefit to brave men and women who lose their life in the course of doing their duty and when I point out that you’re talking twaddle you say that I’m spinning a line. Pot, kettle and black springs to mind. Instead of discussing the facts I’ve put forward you’ve once again wandered into the old defence of ad hominem attacks. It won't work Mike, people can see that your argument doesn't hold water Nobody is going to have their benefits cut or denied Mike and Obama has budgeted to spend exactly what he’s being told will be required. So what exactly are we supposed to get so outraged about? The fact that he could double the budget and spend the money they don’t need on something else – yeah he’s really despicable for not doing that Mike. The guy should be flogged, along with all those idiots writing inflammatory articles that ignore or twist facts to spin a non-issue into a major beef to incite people who should know better into outrage. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Why would Obama count this as a budget cut if it doesn't really cut actual spending? All claims submitted will be paid in full, as always, whether the injury/death rate goes up or down. Spending 'up to the budgeted amount' doesn't apply in this situation. If no claims are submitted for injury/death, nothing is paid out, no matter the budgeted amount. I think it's all political smoke 'n' mirrors to garner press attention and to try to position himself as someone who is fiscally responsible, and possibly another political ploy to sabotage focused attention on other outrageous activities like the ongoing attempted nationalizing of banks and private industries. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t know, call me crazy, but could it be that it’s because he’s cut it from the budget? quote: BINGO! But putting nothing in the budget would be just as silly as putting double the expected spend in there, so that despicable, cunning, foxy-stoat Obama has put in exactly the amount that the managers of the fund reckon they’re going to need. How dare he! What sort of radical leftist accounting system is he using where your budget accurately reflects the exact amount you’re expecting to spend. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My point, Grinch, is that it doesn't cut spending. There are plenty of things on which he can actually cut spending that would actually reduce the deficit. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Where and when did Obama say it will cut spending Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I create a household budget to control and cut, if necessary, my spending, to stay within my means. Should we demand less than that of our politicians? In feeding the news to the media that he was making 'budget cuts', I believe that he intended to convey to people that he was attempting to cut spending, where possible, in order to appear fiscally responsible, since that is the meaning of budget cuts to the average person. A budget cut without an actual corresponding spending cut is just a political word game. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Fine with me, grinch. I show you where deaths are up so far this year and you ignore it. I ask you how Obama can look at that fact and still claim that deaths will go down and you ignore it. I asked you why they didn't spend the 110m they were allocated last year if they are the type who spend whatever the budget allocates and you ignore it.The budget managers Obama gets figures from work for Obama. Out of the realm of possibility that the managers would work to make sure Obama gets the figures he wants? Ron doesn't think so. He questioned the figures from the police survivor's group because they could have been prejudicial. The Justice Department that reports to Obama could not be as prejudicial? "Yea, like statistics never lie.." was his thought, I believe. Denise is right. It's simply a dog and pony show, claiming to cut the budget when the fact is they will simply have to replace the money from somewhere else if the rate of increase of deaths continues. That is, if they replace it. Why would I question that if Obama said it? BECAUSE Obama said it. Obama has shown that he speaks with the expediency of the moment. When Bush wanted to cut 18 billion in spending from the government, Obama declared in a campaign speech that 18 billion only represented about one percent of the national debt and would have no signifigance whatsoever. Now Obama is announcing a 17 billion cut in spending, less than one half of one percent of the national debt, and Obama calls it a momentuous action. When challenged with the fact that there were over 8 billion in pork and earmarks in his stimulus package, he responded that that amount only amounted to around 5% of the package and focus should be on the other 95%, as if the 8 billion wasn't any big deal. When Obama announced a one hundred fifty million reduction plan in the budget, he and his trained dog spokesman called it a wonderful thing, As his spokesman put it, "A hundred fifty million sure is a lot of money to ME." Apparently the 8 billion, which he poo pooed isn't. Obama claims to not cut taxes for the middle class. Instead he will raise taxes on the things the middle class buys, causing the middle class to spend more, but in a way Obama can still claim he did not raise their taxes. Now he is lowering the budget for police survivors, even though the figures show that the rate is increasing and he's telling them, "Don't worry. If you need it, I'll give it back to you." You want to question why I take that with a grain of salt? Go ahead. I take it with a grain of salt. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What did he say to make you believe that? quote: You mean like the political word game that’s being played out in the article when it equates a budget cut to a cut in benefits? Mike quote: Did you miss the part where I pointed out that police officers are only one group eligible for payment? Or did you simply ignore it? quote: Did you miss the part where I explained that Obama received a budget estimate from the fund managers? Or did you ignore it? quote: This one I’ll give you, I ignored this because the answer seemed obvious. I’ll answer it if you like: The spend is largely made up of benefits paid and the final spend is dependant on the number of claims. Now I’ll save you the time asking your next question: I didn’t say that the budget for officer benefits would spend up to the limit of their budget I said that if all budgetary items were increased, as you suggested, it would increase actual spend in most areas. Or did you ignore that? quote: Do you seriously believe that Obama wouldn’t find the money to pay the benefits if they go over the budgeted amount? Come on Mike tell me you don’t think he’s that dumb, it’d be political suicide. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I checked out the source you list in your initial post. That would be the source with the ad posted next to it for conservative T-shirts making comments about socialists. The source would be more creditable for me if it was proof read. The headline reads: quote: The statement, as you can see, is one which either states, on purpose, that there is a particular officer — slain officer, mind you — whose justified benefits for his family are in danger of being cut; or which says so through journalistic incompetence. As one reads into the article, it turns out that there is no officer specifically being spoken about. It turns out that that being slain in the line of duty is a half-truth that instead should speak about officers who die while on duty — still deserving folk, mind you, but not officers being murdered by criminals as the article allows us to think, but also officers who have died to industrial accident and the natural hazards of a dangerous job. In fact, what the accurate statement would be is that the general fund from which the Federal government contributes to these officer's benefits is being cut. There are questions however that are not addressed in the article. The article mentions, for example, a figure of 21%. It says that the number of police deaths has increased this year by that amount over last year. They do not say if this figure is an increase of 21% over the total number of deaths for all of 2008 or of some point thus far in the year. They are in fact quite careless with the way they chuck the number around. They are not terribly clear where the number comes from, how the computation was done and how it was arrived at. Given their carelessness with their presentation, one should not be surprised. Nor does the article state what percentage of the benefits come from the police officer's union funds, what percentage may come from city funds and what may come from state funds. Nor do they address if there has been any contribution from these sources in the past. They act as if the sole source of the funding is from federal sources. One would need to see this addressed before wanting to express the sort of outrage that various folks have felt free to express here, simply in order to make sure that one is not being mislead by a grotesquely ill written and biased news source. I'd like to know what unbiased sources Mike or Denise might suggest I use to find out these facts. Sources as apparently misleading as this don't seem to provide much but confusion and misdirection as far as I can tell. I would suspect that the media outrage would eventually follow on the believe that the media has believable facts to deal with. They have been wrong before, of course, and will be again, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad; but they do like to point to things that they think of as being facts as justification for what they're saying, even when they're about weapons of mass destruction that aren't there. I simply think that this publication is doing more than trying to continue to stir up ill will about Obama at this point. If Obama was going to try to withhold money from police or firefighters who were hurt on the job, even I'd be against him, and almost every other liberal I know. I'm cautious about my civil rights; that doesn't mean I dislike police or that I want anything but safe and secure lives for them. They want their civil rights, too, I've noticed; and for the most part, they're not all that thrilled about the number of guns on the street either. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I checked out the source you list in your initial post. That would be the source with the ad posted next to it for conservative T-shirts making comments about socialists. The source would be more creditable for me if it was proof read. The headline reads: quote: The statement, as you can see, is one which either states, on purpose, that there is a particular officer — slain officer, mind you — whose justified benefits for his family are in danger of being cut; or which says so through journalistic incompetence. As one reads into the article, it turns out that there is no officer specifically being spoken about. It turns out that that being slain in the line of duty is a half-truth that instead should speak about officers who die while on duty — still deserving folk, mind you, but not officers being murdered by criminals as the article allows us to think, but also officers who have died to industrial accident and the natural hazards of a dangerous job. In fact, what the accurate statement would be is that the general fund from which the Federal government contributes to these officer's benefits is being cut. There are questions however that are not addressed in the article. The article mentions, for example, a figure of 21%. It says that the number of police deaths has increased this year by that amount over last year. They do not say if this figure is an increase of 21% over the total number of deaths for all of 2008 or of some point thus far in the year. They are in fact quite careless with the way they chuck the number around. They are not terribly clear where the number comes from, how the computation was done and how it was arrived at. Given their carelessness with their presentation, one should not be surprised. Nor does the article state what percentage of the benefits come from the police officer's union funds, what percentage may come from city funds and what may come from state funds. Nor do they address if there has been any contribution from these sources in the past. They act as if the sole source of the funding is from federal sources. One would need to see this addressed before wanting to express the sort of outrage that various folks have felt free to express here, simply in order to make sure that one is not being mislead by a grotesquely ill written and biased news source. I'd like to know what unbiased sources Mike or Denise might suggest I use to find out these facts. Sources as apparently misleading as this don't seem to provide much but confusion and misdirection as far as I can tell. I would suspect that the media outrage would eventually follow on the believe that the media has believable facts to deal with. They have been wrong before, of course, and will be again, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad; but they do like to point to things that they think of as being facts as justification for what they're saying, even when they're about weapons of mass destruction that aren't there. I simply think that this publication is doing more than trying to continue to stir up ill will about Obama at this point. If Obama was going to try to withhold money from police or firefighters who were hurt on the job, even I'd be against him, and almost every other liberal I know. I'm cautious about my civil rights; that doesn't mean I dislike police or that I want anything but safe and secure lives for them. They want their civil rights, too, I've noticed; and for the most part, they're not all that thrilled about the number of guns on the street either. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He's just playing political games, Grinch, in order to appear fiscally responsible to the public in hopes of gaining their support. His latest budget proposal is just his initial budget proposal repackaged, and stands at .1 trillion more than the one Congress just approved. Most of his so-called new cuts were already 'cuts' in his initial proposal. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/budgets_mirrors_and_the_media.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Denise, Are you saying that reducing the budgetary allocation for this fund, that is twice the amount necessary to meet all claims, isn’t fiscally responsible? This thread, and the original article produced as evidence, contains three accusations that you and Mike now seem reluctant to address. 1 That the Administration is planning to reduce the benefits paid to public service officers. 2 That the media should be outraged by the budget reduction. 3 That officers won’t be paid if the fund goes over budget? Failing to verify those accusations, or ignoring the evidence entirely, is a neat trick, it’s allowed Mike to make additional accusations. He says it proves that Obama and the media are despicable, that he’s disappointed that Ron has offered a reply that is beneath him and that I’ve spun the facts. The validity of all these accusations is dependant on the truth-value of the original accusations. If the article is correct all the accusations are valid. I don’t think any of them are valid, nor it seems does Ron, or Bob. What do you think Denise, Mike? Are any of the accusations valid? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, it doesn't make him fiscally responsible, Grinch, because it doesn't necessarily change anything concerning spending if the budgeted amount is not exceeded in the coming year, or if he 'finds the money somewhere else' if it is needed due to an increase of injury/death over what the administration is projecting which, as Mike has shown, the cases are on the rise this year, not declining. He is giving the impression that he is cutting, when it fact, at best, it's a zero sum game, and at worst he is cutting something that shouldn't be cut if additional funds are needed above what is being allocated and he somehow 'can't find' the additional funds if needed. In that event benefits will be cut to injuried/slain officers and their families and the fears expressed in the original article will be realized. And If he did all this so-called budget cutting this week, with fanfare, why is his end product .1 trillion higher than what Congress just passed the other day? Shouldn't budget cuts lower the total budgeted amount, not increase it? Or is Washington math different than regular math? I guess it might be considering their definition of a budget cut is different from the average folks understanding, which generally leads to actually cutting spending if necessary, or moving things around in a budget from one item to another, spending a little more here, a little less there, if need be. But what you don't do is go over the budgeted amount overall without rendering your budget meaningless. The bottom line is that he hasn't cut the budget, but rather increased it, making people think he has decreased it. He didn't base his budget cuts on the one that Congress just passed, as was the impression he gave by announcing his cuts just after congress passed the budget, but simply trotted out his original plan that already had those 'cuts' in it, (but was still .1 trillion higher than the congressional plan), all for the sake of press coverage touting him as fiscally responsible. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike hasn’t shown that the claims are increasing Denise, he’s shown that one group out of several eligible to claim, police officers, have had an increase in deaths while on duty. If you do a little research instead of looking at one particular subset of possible claimants you’ll find that total claims are almost exactly the same as last year despite the increase in police deaths. You keep mentioning Obama’s claim that he’s reduced actual spending on these benefits but don’t seem to be able to supply any evidence. As far as I can see he’s claimed to have reduced the budget to match the expected spend which is, despite your claims to the contrary, a fiscally responsible thing to do. Btw, have you had a chance to look at the questions I posed regarding the accusations in the article and their validity? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, what I said, Grinch, is that he has reduced the budgeted amount for that program, not actual spending. Not yet, anyway. He very well may if funds aren't available and need exceeds the budget. Regardless, he isn't saving any money, despite the attempt at portraying that he is. As to your questions: quote: 1. They very well may reduce the benefits if need exceeds available funds and the money can't be found elsewhere. 2. The media should be outraged over the duplicity of this administration. 3. Depending on the circumstances they may not be paid what they are being paid now if the need is over projection and funds are not available and cannot be reallocated from another area. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You keep saying this Denise, but so far the only evidence you’ve offered is that “you believe that’s what he intended”. I think you’re wrong, can you supply some evidence to back up your claim. Oh, and thanks for trying to avoid the original issues with your answers. The administration may invade Canada, introduce mandatory euthanasia for anyone over 25 and they may sell Manhattan to the Iranians. That doesn’t mean they’re planning to do any of them. Feel free to believe whatever you like regardless of the evidence Denise, as long as you’re happy, that’s the main thing. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His releasing to the press that he was making budget cuts just after congress passed their budget plan, when he in fact was not using their plan as the jump off point, as people would naturally assume, but rather his original plan that already had these cuts in them, means that he was being deceitful with the American people, because he in fact was not introducing any new budget cuts, and his budget is more costly than the one passed by congress. I think that shows his 'intent' very clearly. Do you have evidence to the contrary for my consideration? People who do things without planning ahead are poor administrators, don't you think? The proof will be in the pudding, Grinch. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote:  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why confuse the issue with evidence Denise – you seem to be doing pretty well so far without any. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What was the point, or his intent, in coming forward to the press with a list of budget cuts right after congress passed their version and when his new proposal was higher than theirs and was just a repackaging of his original proposal? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Then it would be incumbent on you to define conditions in which it's possible for a President to be fiscally responsible in this economic climate, wouldn't you say? Otherwise your accusations of fiscal irresponsibility are indistinguishable from doing the best that anybody can do in a difficult situation, and become meaningless. That would mean that you could make whatever criticism you wanted, but that it would be essentially white noise. So, if you're going to take the discussion further, you'll need to say what you think a responsible economic course may be, and defend it. Take a position. If you want to balance the budget (I do), tell me how you think it should be done that's different than what Obama's doing. He's been reasonably clear about the rationale on his policy. Stimulate the economy by putting money into the lower end of it, where the people will put it back in. Support it where the failure of the larger institutions will drag down the macroeconomic structures that keep the Capital flowing smoothly: Put the money where your mouth is, essentially. What's yours? And why do you believe it more effective that his? Thank you for the reference to the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau article. I thought that it was well written. I don't have to agree with it to see that it was an attempt at good writing, and I really, really appreciate that. I'd be curious to know what percentage of the budget growth and spending growth (I don't know, and I haven't checked yet) are a result of trying to put the cost of the wars in the budget and on the books this time around, rather than out of the budget and off the books as supplements as the practice was during the Bush administration. It may be that the increase is not only apparent, but real as well; it may be that some portion of the increase may be more apparent than real. I simply don't know. Nor do I know for sure what the results of failing to bail out the larger companies would have been. I do know that both the Bush and the Obama folks seemed to have agreed that this was necessary, since the Bush administration worked at pushing the legislation through against congressional objections at the time. This is something that I tend to think that both right and left have some level of agreement about, whatever their current posturing may be. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, if you have any. Thanks for your attention here. Sincerely, Bob Kaven Best to the Grandkids and happy mothers' day to you. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm just wondering when we'll take into account the business of burying the inherited debt of our ...f nevermind  I think this has gone on long enough. And I agree that I don't agree with every Obama-step, but I said that from the beginning. He's gonna have to do much more unenviable work, and this? It's mere distraction in comparison to the hard line needs of our country. (And no, I won't elucidate--but feel free to reference me--later--when it happens.) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, Bob, I had a very nice Mother's Day. My position on the economy is less government interference the better. And I believe that free enterprise and hard work grows the economy, trickle down, not trickle up. I don't think socialism has a track record of producing healthy, vibrant economies. Karen, I don't think we make things better by compounding inherited debt with even more debt. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, That's a fair enough statement of position, Denise, and I appreciate it. You should be aware, however, that this puts you firmly in the pro-slavery camp. Slave owners felt that the government had no right in interfering with their property rights and their economic freedoms in the same way that you do. It also puts you in the pro monopoly position. How do you feel about the rights of individual entrepreneurs to lobby the government for favorable laws, for example to be free from criminal or civil responsibility for damages that result from their actions? This would be government interference in business and the economic system, not to mention the everyday civil rights of the population. This seems to me to be favoring one part of the population over other parts, which the constitution seems to frown on under the equal protection section. Your simple description doesn't seem to cover these bases, while you do seem to require President Obama to do so or be scolded sharply. Yet the values that you expect him to follow are not clear in these cases either, following as they do from the economic case you do stipulate. While I believe that support of slavery is outlandish, I believe that some degree of government intervention is necessary in the private sector. My belief is at one with my supposition here. I'm the last person to claim that a person and his beliefs must always have a direct and logical connection. But I do believe that it's useful to know where there is a disconnect and to acknowledge that it is there. I for example am anti-death penalty, while there are many people that I believe certainly deserve it. There's a logical disconnect for you of my own. My temporary fix is that I believe I lack necessary compassion for everybody. I am also uncertain that lets me off the hook. What about your belief in government non-interference in at least matters of economics and the business of slavery, however? What about some of these other issues here? None of which diminish your criticism of President Obama in the least, by the way. I am obligated to pay somewhat more attention to what you say because I disagree with you, lest I miss something of import. This is most distressing, I must say. You catch me here at a place where I like myself not very well at all. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think all conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists should go to the place where there is currently the least amount of government interference in the economy. Somalia.  Now if ya'll don't mind -- this thread has reminded me of one thing my dear departed daddy used to tell me -- if you jump in the mud with the pigs there is only one certain result -- you get dirty -- and the pig likes it -- therefore -- I'm just gonna shake off my boots now. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm unclear why anyone would confuse less government interference with no interference? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I sort of agree Denise, a smaller Government is the ideal, but only to a point and only when the circumstances allow. I just think that right now the only way out of this mess is through Government intervention, that leaving things to take their normal course isn’t an option. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama says police officers deserve respect and support because as the economy worsens, crime rises. The same man who said days earlier that fewer police deaths were expected....that's Obama. ...and I am off. See you in a week or so. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
He probably said it because all the evidence suggests that it’s true Mike. The average in the 1970’s was 218 officer deaths per year, in the 1980’s it had fallen to an average of 187 and by the 1990’s it had fallen even further to 152. Granted the figures for the present decade are up on average but that’s largely due to the single highest incidence of police fatalities, which occurred on September 11th 2001. However 2008 had the lowest number of deaths since 1960 with 133, which suggests that the downward trend is continuing. quote: I think that’s a reasonable conclusion if you study the figures. Btw, I’ve had a quick look at the comparison of reported crime rates each year and there doesn’t seem to be a correlation between an increase in crime rates and the number of police fatalities. That’s probably due to the types of crimes being committed; you could have a drastic increase in petty theft for instance, which wouldn’t necessarily impact on police fatalities. I’ll crunch the numbers and let you know if any pattern emerges. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You'll be in my thoughts and prayers that all goes well and that you are back here as soon as possible, fit as a fiddle, Michael. (((HUGS))) I'm not in the same camp as the slave owners, Bob, because I don't view people as property, and I think the government had every right to step into that situation. Of course the federal government has to have some involvement, or why have a federal government, afterall, but I believe that the federal government's role should be limited to what the states can't do very well individually, things like providing for the common defense, interstate infrastructure and trade,etc. Just as I believe that increasing debt is not the answer to solving the problems caused by inherited debt, I don't believe that government interference is the solution to problems created by government interference, Grinch. We're just going to compound the problems and the misery. I don't know what in our discussions here causes you to be reminded of a pigsty, Reb. I just see people expressing their political views, same as always. Is it now taboo to accuse a politician of playing political games to manipulate public opinion? Gosh, I hope not. This is still America, isn't it? But if you are so averse to pigsties, I'll bet you are real glad that you didn't attend the Washington Correspondants Dinner last weekend. You'd have to clean the slime off of more than just your boots!  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nope. Call it pigsty remains if you will, but I had to hear that Clinton's administration "inherited" good "trickle-down" economic sense for years now. President Obama inherited a debt that wouldn't fit on a ticker... and now that doesn't count? (I lied about the math. I can do math.)  sorta |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, The slave owners would have agreed with you too, Denise. They felt that slaves weren't people, neatly getting around your objection. The folks who operated debtor's prisons, however, did think the debtors were people, simply that being in debt meant that they forfeited pretty much all of what we consider to be civil rights. Robert Rogers, the guy who founded Robert's Rangers during the French and Indian Wars, and on whose thinking the Army devised its Ranger Program during WWII, then and later its special forces died in Debtor's prison in England, as did any number of Americans of that era, not to mention Englishmen. Debt Bondage was one of the ways that many White Americans got to this country. It was limited in time from actual slavery, but the differences in civil protections were few. This was another of the economic situations common in the history of this country. Government interference brought that to an end. Government involvement is necessary in issues that you may not have mentioned. Acid rain, for example, damages the lakes, streams and rivers of Eastern states, but has its origins in some of the coal fired industry and power generating plants of the midwest. Run-off from mining operations in one state effect the fishing industry in other states, so a national set of standards is needed and needs to be enforced. The actual damages done to the industry and populations of the states down-wind and downstream needs to be taken into consideration in assessing damages, otherwise there is no incentive to change the damaging behaviors, nor are the damages caused made whole. This is a matter of taking care of the interests of the whole country, not those folks who can wave the largest check in front of the re-election funds of those seeking office. There actually is a body politic, a polis that actually does have interests that need to be guarded. Those who take care of the Capital in the country are only a part of the country. Those interests are important, but not more important than those interests of other people who are part of the democracy. The form of government here is not Capitalism, it is Democracy. Capitalism is the closest word we have to describing the economic system we use for managing our money. It is important that we remember that we are a form of government that has adapted an economic system, and not the other way around. The economic system is supposed to serve the Democracy. When the Democracy starts to serve the Economic system, it has stopped being a Democracy — which by definition, serves the people of the community — and started to become an oligarchy. Alas that the first community was one of slave-holders. Both in Athens and the United States. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
The implications do seem harsh out of one eye, but the other eye is taking in the logic of the percentage of funds that are not being used....or are they? I know we didn't need a 7 million dollar town hall, which it's now nicknamed the "House of Air" because it's so vastly empty and quiet inside. The clerk got excited when I came to pay my speeding ticket.(My occasional donation to the TN Highway road fund.) She'd not seen but two people all day, her boss and me and I was in a hurry...like usual, bless her heart. If she develops a social disorder, it could be work related. And then there was the "love child incident," involving a certain man in charge of many funds. His mistress took tens of thousands out the courthouse door. He knocked his opportunity gavel all OVER the budget books. Hmmm... if it ain't there to spend except for locked issues of benefits, maybe that's a benefit? Even small towns need qualified eyes to keep a watch out for the white collars that can make the citizens see red. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Our form of government is not a Democracy, Bob, it is a Republic. Here is a clip that explains the various forms of government, all the way from Anarchy to Oligarchy, that I found very informative. It's a real Civics Class refresher course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=player_embedded I don't agree that our economic system should serve our form of government, nor the government, the economic system. I view capitalism as an economic system that has a proven track record of producing growth, stability, and prosperity in a society, that has built in corrective cycles that work to regulate it, when unencumbered by overreaching government intervention, that fits hand-in-glove with our form of government. It is socialism as an economic system that fits hand-in-glove with the oligarchy, whether it's labeled democracy, socialism, or communism, which is anathama to the spirit of freedom in the heart of the sovereign citizen. I think history shows that as an economic system socialism has a dismal track record and leads to eventual oppression. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I disagree with you pretty much straight down the line, including the distinction between Democracy and Republic that our grade school teachers made us memorize and made so much about. It was not a distinction that as far as I know the founders made, and not one that was made until the Democratic Republican party fell apart and folks tried to introduce a distinction where there had been none before. I also disagree about the success of socialism. You may be talking about Communism, which didn't work out well. But socialism and various degrees of socialism has worked out well in a number of countries. The trick is to have a free electorate that decides how far they want the activities of the government to go and to experiment with less and more depending on the needs of the country. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and a number of the Scandinavian nations seem to have done fairly well this way. Their standards of living and their level of happiness seem to be doing about as well as ours, and in some measures they seem to be doing better. I suggest to you that it is important whether economics serves the government or vice versa, for reasons I stated above. I don't see that you've actually addressed my points other than to deny them. I will at the risk of being tedious repeat myself though. When the government serves the needs of the few, it is not a Democracy any more, by definition. A Democracy serves the will of the people, not the wish of the few. A government that serves the wishes of the few is an oligarchy, also by definition. That's what happens when your economic system rules your government, rather than vice versa. It certainly can happen with a left wing economic system as well, make no mistake about it. I'm not in favor of having a socialist economic system run things any more than I am having a right wing fascist or Capitalist system run things. I don't want any economic system running things. I want a democracy running things that decides where and in what direction the country needs to move, and where it needs to move away from when that proves necessary, as it does from time to time. There is more, but this is more than enough for now. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Nay fray, Mr. Bob. I think you’ve pegged Germany all wrong. I’m undecided about France and the other countries you’ve mentioned. Grinch is happy…lol…gotta love the irony of the name game though. But Germany? If there was a free boat ride to America off the coast of “Fish Peoples,” (Hamburg) and the German Gov. didn’t care who was on it, it would be sunken with passengers before the first bottle of Halleroder was opened for a toast, (if even out of spite so they could come here to tell us how much better their form/way of life is over there.) LOL. It’s an endearing trait, for about an hour, and I’m fully aware that it’s a similar disposition. So it’s nothing I hold against them. I can “Hau weg die Scheiße!” with the best of them. Speaking of boats/ships. Here’s ya an interesting little link on Entrepreneurships in Germany. Yes, the link is a bit dated, but things are not largely paced for change across Germany. I mean-- Bad Frankenhausen celebrated their 1010th anniversary while I was there. Note: “West Germany’s economy was fueled by the United States and after unification, East Germany’s economy rose.” We certainly didn’t perfect any standing for anyone, but Who thinks the wall went down because socialism was working for the EG’s? “The entrepreneurial mindset in Germany is hindered by cultural disapproval of individual enterprise and economic deterrents of exorbitant corporate taxes and high social security standards. Corporations, on average, reach a net profit margin of only 2% of revenue, while an unemployed man may receive up to 60% of his salary for as long as three years. Germany ranks first in corporate bankruptcies though it is a leader in social security benefits.” I dunno? Are they happy? Or smart? Or corralled? Socialism reminds me of the zoo keeper in Andy Andrews—“The Traveler’s Gift.” He went on safari to trap the “world’s first-in-captivity” animals. He easily did it with honey and barley and one fencepost a night. When asked how? He replied: “I treat animals the same way I treat people: I give them what they want. I give them food and shelter. In exchange, they give me their beauty and their freedom.” quote: I’m sorry, but the only key word in that statement is “Trick,” for me. Currently, there’s very little “free” anything in Germany and the fenceposts are more solidly set than experimental. The amount of taxes one ordinary German citizen pays to the government from their capped wages and assigned employment would more than buy us both an all expenses paid 1st class trip to Frankfurt or Berlin with plenty left over for a blast during Oktoberfest. But yes, they’ve learned a few tricks, such as becoming expert networkers, barterers and service traders, and in many households every member is a secret agent “power seller” on Ebay, since yard sales are illegal and private sales cannot exceed 512eur per year without paying a “speculation tax,” on top of the social insurance and local taxes. I think speculation tax is something Ralphy Nader proposed here on securities…and of course it involved taking from the wealthy. Poor rich people…they are so slapped around it ain’t safe to rattle two dimes without feeling like they owe 20 Lincolns to somebody—sorry, off track. So hey? Why work if you can draw 60% of your normal income for 3 years? Work for year then go back to the 3 year cycle. Perfect!! It just has to be paid back over…FOREVER. Forever indebted to socialism, forever and ever, amen. quote: I agree, but what’s really happening when an alarming percentage of the democracy becomes dependent upon the state? There’s not much room for leaning anymore to the left or to the right. It’s becoming a static enterprise. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sear rwoods, West Germany was doing fine until it had to deal with east germany. East Germany was, however, communist, and was not run by anything approaching free elections. It was an ecological disaster and an economic disaster that West Germany has been trying to bring into the present for almost twenty years. You usually understand the differences between communist and socialist, or I thought you did. Have they blurred for you? East Germany was under the thumb of the Soviet Union as pretty much a client state from 1945 till 1989 and it was run pretty much for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Part of the struggle that West Germany has been having with the citizens of the former East Germany is the notion that the decisions they make affect themselves and others, and that they need to understand that their votes actually mean something. Hard to make when you've been tracked by the secret police all your life. Communist versus socialist: There actually is a difference. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The founders did make a distinction between the form of government they set up, a republic, and a democracy, Bob, and a few of them are quoted in the video link that I provided. And it's easy enough to go back to their original writings for verification of what we were taught in grade school. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A lot of those folks didn't get the distinction between direct democracy —as in Athens, which by and large the founding fathers loathed— and representative democracy, which they liked, but which they called " a republic." The clearest explanation that I could find on a short search was in a child's encyclopedia, which managed to lay the whole thing out clearly and concisely. http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/de/Democracy If I can do anything more to get extra detail, I'll be glad to give it a shot. The material I saw was much more detailed, but was fifteen years or so ago. This material covers some of the same ground but more superficially. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Dear Mr. Bob, There is, indeed, a difference between communism and socialism. Stalin strangled the Eastern Bloc, quite expertly in his madness. He comported socialist economic models upon the Eastern Bloc to his Soviet communist models, and the whole kit-n-caboodle failed. From the first wave of the "Five Year Plan" to the "Planned Construction of Socialism" to the "New Course," yada yada, which all forms embraced a socialist economic regime, implemented by the SED (socialist unity party of Germany) Walter Ulbricht, a communist, ran the SED, and sure, he bent things to the marxist-leninist side in gov principle, but the economic principles were still leaning toward a socialist economy, because they were struggling no matter which way one wants to look at them. Sort of like Obama who's trying to bolster our democratic republic with socialist principles, but hey, it's still early into the next 3 centuries of debt. Even when the Soviets purged the SED of socialists, lol, they still moved toward socialism. AND, my point is.....: Germany is socialist and things are not working all that wonderfully, so I don't think that's the answer, especially if one looks at the stats. Putin looks so good it's disgusting, due to the monster that he is. oh well... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Rwood, Ulbricht was a communist in the soviet model, closer to Stalin than others. He ran East Germany during most of his time in office as an occupied territory. Actual Soviet troops were stationed on East German soil and had powers to exercise there. The Stasi worked with the KGB, and if Ulbricht hadn't been backed by the Soviets, it's unlikely her would have remained in power there. When Reagan visited Berlin, he didn't say, "Mr Ulbricht, Tear down this wall!" He had at least some idea of who was running things and were the power lay. He understood the term "client state." He addressed Mr. Gorbachov. Client state under control of Soviet Union. Freely elected socialist government or government with high level of socialist policies, also freely elected and re-elected freely, such as we have had on occasion in Scandinavian countries, in France, and — under other names — in the United Kingdom. The governments in this paragraph are different than the government in the last paragraph. What about the term client state is there that I am failing to explain to you. It is a state that is run for the benefit for another country's economy. In the language of the Left, it is sometimes called a Colony. It is not governed for anything but the send its resources elsewhere and it impoverish it. It is the victim of a vampire. The soviets did this to East Germany and many other countries for a long time. There is nothing in Marxist doctrine that suggests this is suitable behavior, by the way. I have no portfolio for Lenin, but even Lenin on his death-bed warned against Stalin. Lenin thought Stalin was basically nuts. In a letter to his mom in the late twenties, Stalin said, essentially, and this isn't an exact quote, but the gist of it, Well, mom, you want to know what I do? Remember the Tsar? It's pretty much like that. If you want the exact quote you can find it in Niall Ferguson's The War of The World, which I can't recommend enough, even if it is somewhat on the Right Wing side. It's a brilliant look at the twentieth century from a right of center military and political point of view that's worth anybody's time and attention, even if — as I do — you may disagree. It's writing is a pleasure, and its thinking is first rate. You can get it remaindered in hard-bound for under ten bucks and you can probably get it used off the internet for cheaper. In other words, I think that what we think of as the old Soviet Union was simply another incarnation of Imperial Russia with all of Imperial Russia's concerns played out on a bigger field. I have similar ideas about China, by the way, and I think that we're still dealing with another dynasty of chinese emperors. I think funny, though, as you may see. I think the differences are more superficial and the similarities are more profound in both cases. And that we have gotten their traditional imperial aspirations confused with their superficial political thinking. In Germany, the West Germans are trying to clean up the mess that fifty years of Russian occupation and paranoia have inflicted on East Germany. That's not Socialism. The Soviets lost at least 20 million dead from the Germans alone between 1941 and 1945. Possibly more. And at the end of world War I, they lost enormous swathes of territory to the Germans, including much of their industry, much or their agricultural lands, much of their resource rich land area. They were feeling paranoid and vengeful. The Germans paid. Now they're trying to reconstruct something approaching a whole country. You might blame the Germans, you might blame the Russians, but the governments elected by the East Germans had very little to do with it, and the resources expended now by the West Germans aren't to repair the election of socialist or communist governments. They're to repair the effects of the imposition of governments by outside powers. Any thoughts? I really do commend that book to you and to anyone, left or right, who likes tight writing and solid thinking. Sincerely, Mr. Bob |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'd also be interested in seeing some sources on your thinking that Obama is bolstering anything with socialist principles. He still looks like Republican Lite to me, from where I stand, on the model of a Rockefeller or a Stassen. He not only was elected to the Law Review at Harvard — which isn't easy for anybody — but he ended up as President of the Law Review, which is darned near impossible, and nobody thought that his time as the President at the Law Review was a particularly Liberal time there. The Liberals were somewhat upset with him, actually, for not being Liberal enough. Putting money into welfare and direct grants to the poor as Obama has done is a pretty decent way of kick-starting the economy at this point. A lot of the trickle down stuff may have worked when the government had a 90% tax rate in the upper brackets — and it did; it worked quite well — but when the tax rate got as low as it became in the Clinton years, it didn't seem to be repaying the treasury for the tax cuts it was giving. In the Bush years, the tax cuts were actually losing money for the treasury, not generating it. Direct grants to the poor get that money into the economy quickly, and there's a multiplier effect that kicks in quickly as well. The poor can't afford to save it, they have to spend it, and that money goes into rents, and groceries and gas, and maintenance. The money comes back into the treasury plus other monies in increased tax revenues. Apparently, unlike tax cuts to to rich at this point on the Laffer curve, the government actually generates tax income this way. When the Tax rates on the rich were at confiscatory levels, tax cuts there also apparently generated net revenue for the treasury, though not at this point and not at the point where the tax rates were set in the Clinton years, at about 39% in the highest bracket. They're now lower, though for folks in the very highest bracket they may go back up. Exactly what is Socialist about this escapes me, unless you'd consider Ike a socialist. I think he'd disagree. In fact, you might try looking up some of the socialist platforms from the early 20th century and comparing them to what we consider pretty much standard operating policy these days. No child labor — pure socialism. The 40 hour work week — pure socialism. Since I don't believe you're in favor of social security, I won't mention that, though it's quite possibly the most popular of government programs and it was also a socialist policy. Women's right to vote? Yep, pure socialism. Racial equality— yep, those crazy socialists actually thought it was a great idea. Perhaps these and other advances which I happen to value are things that you'd like to get rid of. I've got to tell you, though, that I still disagree with you, even about women's right to vote. I don't care what nasty names you call me. I still think you ought to have the right to vote, even if you think that it's a piece of socialist nonsense. I also think we ought to keep six year olds off the labor market — call me a wild-eyed commie agitator as much as you want. Sincerely, Mr. Bob |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide This is EXACTLY the message communicated by the participants of the nationwide TEA Parties, for which they were ridiculed. But Obama's solution is far different than those who participated in the TEA Parties, who want less government and more free enterprise. His solution is MORE government control and regulation, in taking over our health care system and more federal regulation of credit card issuers. Yeah, that should work. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Should help. Should also help for credit card companies to stop offering credit cards to people who can't afford them. Charging rates that would have gotten them burned at the stake in the middle ages doesn't help either. When loan sharks do this sort of thing it called racketeering, and we close them down as criminal enterprises and put the people running them in jail. When party donors (pick your party, Denise. I'm mostly steamed at Republicans as a matter of principle, but I'd be willing to venture you'll get your share of Democrats in there as well) get involved, I guess it's called business and banking. As far as I'm concerned, when the rates get up as high as they do, it's predatory lending and usury. These are the same folks who brought you the loan instruments the sent the economy south. I think we should regulate those too, wretched Democrat that I am. These are variations on theft, plain and simple, wrapped in a box with a pretty bow on it. And we still need to jump start the economy. There are only so many ways to do this. I've written why giving tax breaks to the rich isn't a useful move at this time. You really should respond to that. I've written about why direct grants to the needy is a good move at this time. You really should respond to that as well. I do appreciate the sarcasm, but it's of limited use as a substitute for reason and facts. Tell me what about the (much beloved of conservatives) Laffer curve makes tax cuts to the rich makes sense right now. Show me what about the Laffer curve suggests that direct grants to the poor says don't actually put extra money into the treasury. Just thinking. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A big part of what sent this economy south was the granting of mortgages to people who couldn't possibly afford them, by relaxing lending standards, Bob. And the government was a facilitator in this mess with the Community Reinvestment Act, given "new teeth" under Bill Clinton, forcing lenders to lend to those who didn't meet the lenders' standards. And George Bush was also complicit in this in "We want everybody in America to own their own home." http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html Obama contributed to this as well, in his role as an attorney for ACORN, in suing lenders who didn't want to relax their standards, charging them with racism. The problem, Bob, as I see it, is too much government regulation and interference, not too little. The credit card issuers should tighten their standards and reduce offers of credit, and I think the extent of the government's involvement should be to see that they adhere to 'responsible' lending practices, and not force them to expand credit offers to those who have a high probability of default based on their income levels and credit history, as happened in the mortgage markets. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Thank you for the link to Forbes. I've always enjoyed their stuff, and the fact that this particular essay was by one of the folks in the Objectivist/ Ayn Rand camp didn't bother me. The guy tried to make a clear argument, and I liked the way he reasoned, though I didn't agree with his conclusions. I particularly appreciate the care you've taken in finding such a well reasoned piece from such a well respected journal. Thank you very much. There are interesting and appropriate responses by Paul Krugman, some of them going back to 2005 and earlier warning of this particular recession and giving the reasons for the predictions. You can google them if you wish. I found something that I thought was somewhat more interesting — to me, to be sure — that spoke to your comments about government intervention that I thought would be worth sharing. I thought that they might add some extra depth and width to the discussion, since they talk about past uses of government intervention in situations of this sort, and they tracked how these interventions did and didn't work. http://bus.utk.edu/econweb/faculty/davidson/cepapolicypub2008.pdf It's a bit on the lengthy side, but it's not written in an overly complex fashion, and it makes a number of interesting points in a fairly plain-spoken way. About six pages. Thank you once again for your selection of the article from Forbes. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
latearrival brought this up from the archives and, actually, I forgot I had written it! Interesting that I wrote it at the beginning of 2000, no? Maybe I won't turn in tha crystal ball just yet  /main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=30&topic=002238 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm glad you enjoyed the article, Bob. I'll have to read the one you provided when I have a bit more time. Thanks. Hi Michael!  I sure hope you are starting to feel better! Yes, history sure does seem to have a way of repeating itself, doesn't it? Maybe one day we'll learn from it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I was reading some stock stuff and I came across this short article that supports a lot of your fears about taxes, though not quite from the angle you approach it from. I disagree with a substantial amount of what he says, but he says it well. You and Mike might find it useful because it really is cogent. I've got to get off line just now because the earthquake we're having seems to keep going and going, and I simply don't like that. Here's the link. Two pages, much of it a list. Enjoy: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/22-reasons-obama-will-raise-your-taxes-soon?pagenumber=1 Sincerely, Bob Kaven (Shaken, not stirred) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
shaken..not stirred Bob, you are the man! Anyone who can come up with a line like that gets my respect forever. Sorry to read you are going through that. Yes, with such few things in life to count on, when one can't count on the ground remaining still enough to live on, it does make life an unsettling for sure. Hopefully it doesn't reach 007 on the Richter scale. My best wishes are with you. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
